From the article of 'Petrel'
No.630 / May 25, 1997

Please send us your opinion and the impression about this article without reservation.

�@

The reform bill for equality of males and females in career
employment is about to pass having the approval of all the members of
the political parties outside of the Communist Party. On the one hand
this bill will prohibit discrimination related to hiring, position,
placement, and promotion and also will make it the duty of the work
place boss to prevent work-related cases of sexual harassment. On the
other hand, this bill has provisions to abolish in principle the female
protections related to overtime work, days off, and late night work. In
short, it is important to work towards those aims for equality for both
men and women. In the background to such legal reform, it is clear that
there is a class profit behind the demand of capital to try to exploit
women regarded more and more as fully qualified workers. We want to
take a definite position and warn about the social destruction that this
reform bill will have in weakening the gains to women workers and
conversely, the great damage that will result and how the entire body of
workers cannot even recognize this. How shall we fight this problem and
what type of slogan concerning this problem ought we to use in our
article? The Communist Party says it is opposed to reform, but what
kind of positon is that really? It is absolute nonsense and certainly
rings with a bourgeoise smack, doesn't it?

Any enlightened worker at all will confirm the fact long ago
that you must wipe out sexual "discrimination" and the starting point
for wiping out this discrimination is the destruction of discrimination
related to phases of productive and social work. But on the other hand
as the woman does carry the baby in her body and gives birth to the
child she requires special social treatment, which is not necessarily
"protection!" because she requires it and if society is cooperative at
all it should certainly very naturally support her. Yet, this
selfinterest-oriented bourgeoise society is in error. The highest
priorities made in this society are related to the returns of capital.
The gains to humanity and the gains to society do not get that healthy
longterm continuity. This capitalist society values first of all women
as "labor power" the same as men. Now they value as identical the work
power of women and men and demand that there is no special treatment,
but there is a particular reason this comes from the capitalist corner.

Capitalism is losing its flexibility more and more and cannot maintain
the low wages of labor, so as a top replacement plan to this dilemma
"female labor" has gotten their attention. Therefore, the battle
against the removal of women's protection is linked with the battle
against the capitalist manipulation to scheme up an intensification of
worker exploitation, which means overcoming class conflict and so by
doing this, next we must fight to the finish.

However, as expected, both liberals true to their nature and
communists are downplaying the battle. They have had maneuvers to try
to twist and bend it into a bourgeoise direction and even now are
maneuvering up a twist. For example, representing the bourgeoise
position Nobou Kawakami of the Shinshinto (Neoprogressive Party) in
reference to the equality bill at the Diet states that a woman "has
responsibilities in the home," therefore, protection for the woman
should be appended to the bill. "Because of overtime work that is
exceeding 150 hours which used to be forbidden, cases are coming into
being that are having an effect in a big way on the working lifestyle of
working women with home responsibilities. Within the standard hourly
system (set by the Saburoku Agreement) and with respect to Tyuukishin
[Labor Standards Watch Group], I am asking for an examination of the
procedures in order to bring some mitigation into the radical changes
stipulated by the clause related to working women with home
responsibilities."

In sum, these bourgeoisie or petit bourgeoisie types have a
premise upfront that says "women have home responsibilities" and they
have misgivings about damages to that functionality. Because this
function which is being damaged is important they say we ought to add an
amendment to keep the damaging part out. If you proceed from such a
position, that is, that some women don't marry or some women are exempt
from "home responsibilities," this bill would not be bad. But will what
is being expressed from such a position just be bourgeoise? Will it be
the exact same as the Communist Party position? The communists are
crying the same words among a plethora of words and so on, "If we
abolish 'Regulations For Women's Protection' then the many women who
must carry home responsibilities will have difficulty with lengthy
overtime schedules and could not continue working as employees during
regular hours," (Red Flag, i.e. the Japanese Communist Party official
mouthpiece, May 7th).

Yoko Fujiki of the Communist Party who raised a question at the
National Diet exhorted "Prime Minister, do you plan to let very young
children take care of themselves at late night alone?" In addition she
exclaimed that the current reform is to be the cause of "Homes going to
hell." She added that the Communist Party is talking about "our own
country's long work hours and we are not looking and learning from
international examples," (Ibid., Red Flag).

They emphasize that the abolition of protection regulations are
decreasing wherever there is an increase of places where women work.
And they emphasize perhaps it will be the cause for lowering work
conditions for male workers and workers in other countries.

We make the assertion that the communists are completely wrong
in they way they are taking a stand against the abolition of the
regulations for women's protection, for they are not causing further
understanding in class consciousness of laborers but instead their view
dismantles it and entices workers into a bourgeoise maze and hinders
progress being reactionary.

Diet member Fujiki says women bear "home responsibilities."
Such a presupposition forms the foundation to male authority and
absolutizes modern individual families and consequently absolutizes a
bourgeoise society that takes home responsibilities as a key starting
point. In expressing this presupposition how can she simply say "women
have home responsibilities" if it is the case that you must not change
the modern family system even as capitalism goes extinct? Fujiki is not
speaking for the advantage of women, but is setting women's liberation
"backwards."

Who in the world will carry out this thing called women's "home
responsibilities?" It goes without saying it is bourgeoise, it is of
the LDP, it is of the Neoprogressive Shinshinto Party and all the rest
of them. And the Communist Party is keeping right up with these
bourgeoisies in exclaiming that women shoulder "home responsibilities
and this position must be preserved."

Actually it really isn't as they say that women are truly the
only ones to carry "home responsibilities," is it? Workers find the
current situation unreasonable and as they battle to change incorrect
social relatinships we are not going to continue to follow the status
quo.

Workers affirm that the statement that women carry "home
responsibilities" is without any kind of reasonable basis and has no
universal truth. Rather, if one operates on the theme of women's
liberation you will have a position that must resolutely eradicate such
a statement. No one can make women the only ones carry "home
responsibilities." Shouldn't it be clear that women ought not to be
satisfied with that kind of social position? The general notion that
women should be bound to such a social position is bourgeoise. And it
is petit bourgeoise. But these types as the existing ruling class are
cramming onto the entire society their own version of beliefs, values,
and definition of social relationships (relationships between men and
women at home as microcosm are very much the same as relationships in
society at large as macrocosm, but they say they are secondary.) Former
communists corrupted by petit bourgeoise ways have made a big rush to
suck up to bourgeoisies and follow from behind like copy cats.

Any way, in the battle for women's advantages and liberation the
political members who push for women's "home responsibilities" are
reactionary members and are clearly contending against gains and
liberation for women.

In opposition, enlightened workers reject the general notion of
women's "home responsibilities." Simply put, there is no such reality
as general notions because the world is really rooted in concrete truth
and not just abstract idealism. Ideals have a place, but our ideals and
our concrete practicality both make up our starting point. This
combined view shows the way the battle ought to be waged.

Regarding the significant point that women workers and possibly
workers in general may gain a victory in shorter hours, Marx stated that
you let workers have plenty of leisure time, because in liberating the
self from those hours, self-improvement comes out of that leisure time
which leads to profitability. The significance of such improvements is
that it was accomplished by planned decision. The Communist Party does
not understand Marx's intentions at all and so it skips over the idea to
go after small improvements and changes. Marx actually has nothing to
do with the trifle notion of change that is simply for the individual
workers own increased profit. And modern communists have just "home"
profits and a narrow view before them. They have no shame though they
have gulped down individualism to such a degree.

Again, Fujiki complains that "we are not looking at the
international examples" in light of the Japanese labor situation, but
what kind of crazy world is she looking at? There are plenty of
terrible working conditions for laborers all over the world worse than
Japan's working conditions (or possibly equal). Perhaps it may be,
rather it is the general condition of labor. Just take a step out of
Japan and no matter which country you go to in Asia or Central and South
America there probably is just about no country with more than what
Japan has. Will Fujiki have any thing to say about the countries in
Europe or the USA? When you look at these countries you don't see
countries that have a whole lot of special superiority in working
conditions over Japan, rather even the workers in these lands don't have
any working conditions that are strikingly different from Japan; it may
be that they have a lesser standard, because being under exploitation
from the cruelty of capital they are truly in labor and woe. Fujiki's
claim is complete nonsense. Could her claim be even dumber than dumb?

In conclusion, the colleagues of the Communist Party are indeed
shouting about their opposition to the abolition of regulations for
women's protection, but when it comes to true women's liberation, they
ar not raising one solid point. What they are considering is at best
the support of the status quo. The current system of female protections
has been about the same as the large scale system of capitalist
exploitation, which have not contradicted each other, have they? And
when the demanding ideals of capitalism are applied, though temporarily,
don't they continue to disclose how purposeless they are?

Since the end of the war, the Communist Party has assisted the
structures of democracy and the structures that control capitalist
monopolies. It is even dependent on them. So there will not be any
gains for the liberation of labor or socialism unless this dependence
and structural support come under reform. Their ideals are at best a
European capitalist state, in which case, they are unaware that they
"can only see well somebody else's business," (in short, Japanese
capitalism is in essence the same as the capitalism of the West and both
are exploitative with workers).

The problem is not that women's protections will disappear, but
that there are not protections for all workers (labor will not be
liberated). In other words, there is a cruelly exploitative capitalist
system against workers in general. As well as opposing the abolition of
protective regulations, even more than that, we are fundamentally
opposed to exploitation of workers in general. This is our first
consideration. And what obstacles will be left when exploitation ceases
and there will be no need to even be concerned with the abolition of
female protections?

In conclusion, gender equality is necessary and a necessity;
this is the real issue within women's liberation, not just the
liberation of women as women but of all workers. (There is a difference
between women liberated as workers and as women.)